Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Pinnock

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a brief comment in response to the Minister’s Motion C in relation to Amendment 3, which I moved on Report. I want to put on the record that I understand the line that the Government have taken. It is difficult to make statutory geographical disparities. What matters is the assurance that the Minister has given on that issue. It will really matter, in respect of policy formulation to address geographical disparities, for the evidence to be constantly collected to identify what those disparities are. I accept the assurances that the Minister has given and I have no intention of pursuing the matter further. I am grateful to the Minister.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I have relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a councillor in West Yorkshire.

I will speak specifically to Motion B1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. The finest achievement of the levelling-up Bill could be putting the reduction of child poverty and health inequalities at its heart. After all, it is levelling up that we have been talking about during the many hours that we have debated the Bill. Unfortunately, the government amendment fails to make it absolutely specific that that is what the Bill is going to try to achieve.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Pinnock

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 124 in this group, which relates to Clause 40, “Alternative mayoral titles”. I challenge the notion that a choice of titles is required on the face of the Bill. Powers to decide a title already lie with the CCA, under Clause 40, in line 25 of page 35, and to attempt to define possible titles is an unnecessary addition.

The titles suggested are,

“county commissioner … county governor … elected leader … governor.”

I am not clear where those four titles came from. I guess we could all add some more, but it is confusing since everybody else is using the word “mayor”. I do not understand why another title is necessary. If I look at the word “governor”, I immediately think of a school governor, the governor of a US state or the governor of a prison. I am not sure it helps public understanding of what is proposed with a combined county authority to have a mixture of titles for roles. The public will have great difficulty engaging with them, because the titles could be different in one place from another. The power is there for people on the CCA to decide what title they want but, frankly, if I had my way it would be “mayor” because that has become the term. For the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tees Valley and so on, the word is “mayor” and I am not sure it helps to have suggestions that they could be called “governors” or “county commissioners.” I hope the Minister may be able to look at that and come up with an explanation about why the Government want to confuse things so much.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for raising issues in detail regarding mayoral names—or not—and some aspects of elections and powers, because that points to the fact that although we have a very long Bill with a huge number of clauses, a lot of the detail is insufficient for us to understand completely what the Government seek to do and how they hope these new CCAs and mayors—or not mayors—will operate.

An important issue is in Amendment 103, about what happens if the current mayor stands down for whatever reason. That would be worth knowing for all of us who live in combined authorities.

The second important thing is about the scrutiny of deputy mayor appointments. One would hope that a panel of members who are not of the same party as the mayor would interview and scrutinise the appointment of the person, who will have significant powers conferred on them simply because they are a mate of the mayor; that never seems appropriate. There are a number of other probing amendments in this group, including that of my noble friend about “governors”. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, but it points to the fact that the Bill has not been as well thought through as it might have been.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Pinnock

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, because time presses, my name is attached to the stand part debates on Clauses 58 and 59. I do not seek to repeat what has been said already about those two clauses, but I hope the Minister will give clear evidence for the need for both clauses, because I am unconvinced that they are necessary. I will make a further point in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said a moment ago: that the whole principle behind police and crime commissioners was that they were directly elected. If the ballot box is the main means for a police and crime commissioner to be appointed to their job, I do not think that that system can be meddled with in the way that the Government appear to want to meddle with it.

Indeed, to develop what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, of course a mayor with PCC powers can appoint a deputy mayor to have the PCC powers on behalf of the mayor. Actually, when we read the Bill very carefully—indeed, we debated this in earlier stages of consideration of the Bill—the deputy can also pass powers on to “any other person”. There are some restrictions in the Bill as to what that might mean, but the fact is that the words “any other person” simply take away the power of the electorate to make a decision as to who is the police and crime commissioner. For that reason, I support the propositions on Clauses 58 and 59 not standing part.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is another really important group of amendments to do with the extent of devolution: what are the limits that the Government are putting on that? The only areas we have explored, very important though they are, are the National Health Service, policing, transport services—buses, in particular—and general functions. I have great sympathy with all the amendments in this group, particularly those introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asking where the National Health Service fits in with the notion of devolution to local areas.

As the noble Lord explored, currently the NHS does not fit in. A move was made in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority for the mayor to take the provision of health and care services—which we have not referred to so far—under his powers. That was accepted but has not made much progress. One of the biggest challenges, as has been said time and again in this Chamber in debates relating to other Bills, is the absolute importance of connecting the National Health Service and the social care system. Enabling devolution of NHS services to a mayoral combined authority would enable social care and NHS services to be properly linked. The result of no progress being made in this area is before our eyes; we have too many older people staying in hospital for too long, which harms their health, and they are not discharged into the social care service because the two are not linked. The Government have failed to do this time and again. Well, okay, devolve it—pass it on to local mayoral authorities so that we can see what progress they can make. I repeat every sympathy, and support what has been said. I do hope it will be pursued at later stages of consideration of this Bill because it is so important for the health and well-being of the people we serve.

I will also wholeheartedly support the Clauses 58 and 59 stand part notices, for the reasons that have been said. I will give the example of West Yorkshire, where it was determined that the police and crime commissioner role would be combined with that of our elected mayor. Now we no longer have an elected police and crime commissioner because that role is unelected; they are appointed by the West Yorkshire mayor. That was her right; I am not saying she has done anything wrong. But who is now called to account for failings in policing in West Yorkshire? There have been a number of examples across the country where police and crime commissioners have, for various reasons, been found wanting and have been held accountable for their actions. How does that work in a combined mayoral authority where the mayor appoints the police and crime commissioner? Does the mayor have to be held accountable for the decisions and actions of their appointed deputy? That is the only way that accountability can take place. The attempt by the Government to undermine an elected process is undemocratic. How do the Government think that local people will feel about the very important role of holding policing in the West Midlands to account when an elected police and crime commissioner there is somehow unelected? Those two big issues are very important. It is about whether we are talking about devolution to local areas or still talking about centralised systems where there is delegation to combined authorities—which leads nicely to buses.

I cannot add to my noble friend Lady Randerson’s description of what has happened to the bus services and how important they are to any hope of levelling up for many parts of the country. As she said, if you cannot get a bus in order to access employment then, for many people, it is financially impossible to do other than stay at home. Mayoral authorities need to be given the powers to control bus services, as bus services should be encompassed in mayoral authorities. In giving another local example, I should point out that it was done before the mayoral authority was set up. Nevertheless, it comes from the centre of West Yorkshire where, in my own area, we have a number of small villages where the bus services were poor and people could not get about. Fortunately, there was not only one bus a week—like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has, I think—but services were poor throughout the day. We managed to get a subsidy for what I call a small hopper bus—a 15-seater—to go around the various parts of the Spen Valley area and pick up older people, take them into town to do their shopping, collect them and go back again. After a bit, because it was so popular, it has become a self-financing bus service. With local initiatives comes success because local areas know what would probably work for their patches. That is why enabling mayoral combined authorities to have control over bus services is so vital.

Any notion of levelling up will not work without the aspect of transport. There has been too much focus on rail services, which are very important but do not feature in a lot of people’s options for transport. I repeat that my noble friend Lady Randerson made a powerful case for ensuring that mayoral combined authorities can run bus services. Without that, many people—especially in rural areas, but not only in rural areas—will find that they cannot access the services and jobs they need to if levelling up is to be anything other than a slogan.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Pinnock

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will make just one or two comments on this group. I have listened very carefully to this and the previous group and I think we have an opportunity for the Government to clarify a number of issues around consultation and, indeed, referendums. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said about referendums. What is needed is a statement from the Government, hopefully before Report, on what the nature of consultation should be. What would be deemed to meet a minimum requirement or threshold for there to be an official consultation?

Secondly, the Government need to be absolutely clear what their own powers should be in relation to a consultation: what they can require of a local authority or set of authorities. I welcome the fact that this discussion is taking place; it is really important. We have discussed before in recent years during the passage of previous Bills what local people have a right to expect of their consultation. I, too, in Newcastle, have been through a mayoral referendum, and the same thing happened. The decision was not to have a mayor, but, of course, we now have a mayor of the North East Combined Authority—for which, in fact, there was no referendum. Our referendum was within scope; I ask the Minister: are referendums out of scope?

Turning to Amendment 62, I was struck by one or two other very important issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which the Government need to be a bit clearer about. The first was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock: travel-to-work areas. It all depends how big your CCA or other combined authority is geographically. A very important issue is raised in Amendment 62: whether the Government are thinking in terms of each CCA having a single economic hub. In a number of areas that would not be suitable. In my own part of the country, several travel-to-work areas apply. Hopefully, that point will not be forgotten by the Government.

Lastly, on Amendment 63, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, made another very important point about the duty to co-operate. When during previous Bills we have debated the duty to co-operate, the Government have always been very positive about having that duty placed clearly on the face of the Bill. But a CCA is not just being required to co-operate with a neighbouring CCA, but with all the other bodies that may relate to it. Given the ability of the public sector to operate across boundaries, both geographical and in terms of responsibilities and powers, it matters that the duty to co-operate is made absolutely clear at the outset.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will just make one or two additional comments to those of my honourable friend Lord Shipley, the main one concerning Amendment 126 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about public consultation. I have been involved in a number of statutory instruments on the establishment of metropolitan combined authorities where the public consultation involving “the public” has been minimal, but it was agreed to be satisfactory because it enabled other local institutions—be it businesses, local council representatives or the LEPs—to respond. That has been labelled “public consultation”.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Pinnock

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Stunell. There have been—and still are—legislative opportunities for the Government to act. When the Minister sums up, I hope that he will urgently clarify the Government’s plans.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said in introducing this group, progress has been disappointingly slow. He went on to say that it is “beyond belief” that, three years after the Grenfell fire, action is so slow. He is absolutely right. The general public will become increasingly worried by the deeply disturbing revelations of the Grenfell inquiry.

This amendment seeks to implement recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 1 report. Surely that is the right thing to do as a matter of urgency. This new clause would clarify the duties of an owner or manager in relation to a building with two or more sets of accommodation to provide information on its construction to a local fire and rescue service. Secondly, it would introduce annual inspections of individual flat doors. This is an essential change, given recent experience and the growth of our knowledge about the state of so many entrance doors. This clause would also require monthly inspections, and for evacuation and fire safety instructions to be shared with the building’s residents. What on earth can be wrong with these proposals?

There is nothing in this amendment which should be surprising or problematic. Frankly, the general public would expect nothing else. If the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, decides to press this matter to a vote, I shall certainly support him.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is fundamental to the effective implementation of the principles of this Bill. The role of the responsible person is one of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report which was published more than a year ago. I quote from the recommendations in the report:

“No plans of the internal layout of the building were available to”


the London Fire Brigade

“until the later stages of the fire … It should be a simple matter for the owners or managers of high-rise buildings to provide their local fire and rescue services with current versions of such plans. I therefore recommend that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building”—[Inaudible.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, many tenants and leaseholders in blocks with cladding that is now known to be a serious fire hazard find themselves in a very bleak place indeed. This amendment seeks to address that. Leaseholders have purchased flats in good faith with building surveys, mortgage insurance and building warranties in place. They have done the right thing. Now, through no fault of their own, they are being threatened with additional service charges of several hundred pounds each month to pay for the so-called waking watch, a 24/7 in-person lookout for potential fires. On top of that, they are being asked to fund the considerable costs of remediation work to remove the dangerous cladding and replace it with a safer system. Figures I have seen for some of this work run to tens of thousands of pounds. How are leaseholders, who already have a hefty mortgage, supposed to afford, say, an additional £40,000 bill for the remediation work?

During the debate on an earlier amendment, the Minister referred to leaseholders being asked to pay only affordable costs. I am very disappointed if that reflects the Government’s thinking. Leaseholders should not be asked to pay towards remediation of problems that are not of their making in any way. The question that then arises is: who was responsible for including these dangerous cladding panels in the first place? The construction companies surely have some responsibility. The warranties that were provided on the building should surely cover errors made during construction. The people who do not have any responsibility are those currently being asked to pay the bills. This is not just and not right, and we have an opportunity today to take the first step towards removing the anguish and anxiety faced by homeowners and tenants in this position.

I thank the Minister for making time available for a very useful discussion of this issue, and I accept that the scale of the problem is very large and that the cost of remediation works will run to tens of billions of pounds. I also accept that the Government have made some attempt to relieve the financial pressure on homeowners by providing a £1.6 billion fund towards the costs. However, I suspect that that is just a small portion of the total cost. Perhaps the Minister can indicate the scale of the problem.

I bring us back to the basic question: who should take responsibility? Just yesterday, during the Grenfell inquiry, evidence was given by one of the suppliers of the cladding system about the misinformation provided to win the contract. Evidence has been provided that the Building Research Establishment had already shown the high flammability of these cladding systems. The Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report stated that

“there was compelling evidence that the external walls … failed to comply with Requirement B4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, in that they did not adequately resist the spread of the fire having regard to height, use and position of the building. On the contrary, they actively promoted it.”

Clear evidence, then, of culpability during construction or refurbishment at Grenfell. Of course, we do not know if this is the case elsewhere, but we have sufficient information to demonstrate that those who pay for this extensive remediation must not be the tenants and leaseholders.

We on these Benches feel very strongly that there is a just and moral case for leaseholders and tenants not to be required to contribute to any of the costs. I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say but if the Government do not accept the amendment, I will feel it necessary to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I listened to the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme this morning, in which I heard him say that the cost of removal and remediation of dangerous cladding from residential buildings should be as affordable as possible for lease- holders. This afternoon is an opportunity for the Minister to make clear what this means. I understand that builders and freeholders may have responsibilities in meetings such costs, but where a leaseholder is not a freeholder, why should they have a responsibility to pay out?

The uncertainty for so many leaseholders who are stuck trying to sell their properties or are worried about their possible financial exposure needs swift resolution. The amendment would protect leaseholders who are not freeholders, and tenants, from extra costs, be they single or staggered lump sums, increases in service charges or increases in rents. The responsibility for making safe a building with a fire risk should not lie with the leaseholders or tenants. The amendment would make it clear that it is unreasonable to expect them to be responsible for those costs when they are the ones exposed to risk through no fault of their own. I hope the Minister will agree that this amendment, which would protect leaseholders and tenants, is justified.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Pinnock

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 29th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I acknowledge the sterling work done by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, over the past three and a half years to improve building safety following the Grenfell fire. The central aim of the amendments is to ensure that resources are used to best effect in reviewing the fire risk assessments required by the Bill. The criteria for prioritisation must be based on anticipated levels of risk, so the process and the code of practice outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, seem appropriate to meet this objective. That said, I hope the Minister has understood the concern of many speaking today that improving fire safety needs faster outcomes, and that nothing in this group should mean longer delays for assessments that are felt to be less urgent.

Finally, Amendment 22 is obviously key to the delivery of the intentions behind this group, because it requires sufficient fire safety inspectors to be available, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has emphasised. It is a clear duty of government to ensure that enough qualified inspectors are available, and I very much hope the Minister will shortly confirm that this is indeed the Government’s intention.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Porter, is not able to move his amendment today, as his is a good idea. A fire safety code of practice would draw together many of the issues raised elsewhere in the debate into one place. I am confident that there will be, of course, prioritisation of buildings at risk, but this amendment would ensure that this is set out and therefore legitimised. Sharing the costs of fire risk assessments according to assessed risks is another important element of fairness that has to be acknowledged, and putting it in the Bill, as this amendment does, is wholly positive.

Throughout today’s debate, it is clear that there is full support for the Bill and its purposes. All the amendments seek to do is to improve it for the benefit both of fire safety and for residents’ peace of mind. I look forward, therefore, to the Minister’s response.